Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether condition (c) to the first proviso of Notification No. 41/2012-S.T. required the difference between the rebate amounts under paragraphs 2 and 3 to be computed as an absolute value, and whether the denial of rebate on that basis was justified.
Analysis: The Notification was required to be construed strictly. The wording of condition (c) did not prescribe that the rebate under paragraph 3 must be subtracted from the rebate under paragraph 2 in any particular mathematical sequence, nor did it state that paragraph 2 had to be treated as the minuend and paragraph 3 as the subtrahend. The condition only referred to the difference between the two rebate amounts, which supported reading the difference as an absolute value. The orders of the appellate authority therefore disclosed no infirmity.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue; the interpretation adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge to the rebate interpretation failed, and the orders granting relief to the assessee were sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Exemption or rebate notifications must be strictly construed, and where the notification uses the expression "difference between" two amounts without prescribing a direction of subtraction, the expression may be read as an absolute difference.